No I am just trying to defend my point and prove it correct although I certainly appreciate that you have been so civil in this discussion compared to the other commenters.

The conversation was on applying logic as opposed to emotion when negating everyday problems, now you're talking about building a computer and simulating the entire universe from a sub-particlular level.

Sometimes you just gotta admit you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, bub.

You claim to favour logic, yet your too fucking stupid to even have a simple discussion. Don't bother replying, I'm worried if I continue reading your comments my IQ is going to start depreciating.

Both are similar actions simulation of good decisions requires a simulation of future results I apologize that the logical leap was to great for you too understand. I will try to working on be concise so even the most unintelligent can understand my arguement.

Once more my personal feelings about the argument are irrelevant I don't care if its groundbreaking or earth shattering or whatever. In fact my argument is largely inspired by a return to the Enlightenment tradition of applying reason to everything including society. I have just decided to take it a bit further. As I have said consider just the argument not the speaker.

A mathematical perception of the universe would only be an abstraction if math was an inadequate model for natural events, but the thing is it isn't. If math can explain with outstanding accuracy the smallest interactions of nature then though inductive reasoning it can be said to understand the largest interactions, albeit with massively more complexity. Remember this is theoretical not necessarily logistically possible. And although understanding the entire universe at once would be impossible we can understand the building blocks. An apt metaphor would be to say you can't build ALL the Legos but you can build ANY lego.

No I am just trying to defend my point and prove it correct although I certainly appreciate that you have been so civil in this discussion compared to the other commenters.

It doesn't matter if its impressive that is not why I said it. All that matters is if it's true. Also calling my language pretentious while ending your post with "let that be a lesson" is pretty hypocritical. why are we even arguing about semantics and wording all that should be evaluated is the point I made.

Once more my personal feelings about the argument are irrelevant I don't care if its groundbreaking or earth shattering or whatever. In fact my argument is largely inspired by a return to the Enlightenment tradition of applying reason to everything including society. I have just decided to take it a bit further. As I have said consider just the argument not the speaker.

A mathematical perception of the universe would only be an abstraction if math was an inadequate model for natural events, but the thing is it isn't. If math can explain with outstanding accuracy the smallest interactions of nature then though inductive reasoning it can be said to understand the largest interactions, albeit with massively more complexity. Remember this is theoretical not necessarily logistically possible. And although understanding the entire universe at once would be impossible we can understand the building blocks. An apt metaphor would be to say you can't build ALL the Legos but you can build ANY lego.

No I am just trying to defend my point and prove it correct although I certainly appreciate that you have been so civil in this discussion compared to the other commenters.